Originally posted by queeq
I did NOT get involved. All I said you were generalising over potential evidence. You ditched all of it and claimed (again without proof) that the Bible was fiction and all made up.If you're pissed at particular people, be pissed at THEM. Not at the bystanders.
It's not my place to prove the validity of something I do not think is valid.
But it is your place to aggressively lash out at people and call them liars?
I didn't see the film. From what I know I do think it's overhyped, the presented evidence seems fairly shallow to me.
Originally posted by Devil King
I present no proof for god...are you thick?
And yet you accuse me time and time again for wanting to prove the existence of God.
Originally posted by queeq
No, you're not.But you do claim having studied books about te subject, for years, also without proof. Some claim...
Saying I've spent years reading books and watching documentaries and reading periodicals on the subject are NOT great claims. But, then again, I can't post a link or a picture that substantiates it. Asking you what you want to discuss on the subject is the only way I can prove I'm not talking out of my ass.
However, it would be no great feat to post a link to the very real evidence that I'm sure exists to back up your claims.
Hehehe, interesting this:
Originally posted by queeq
And yet you accuse me time and time again for wanting to prove the existence of God.
And then:
Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not the one claiming to have made documentaries based on the bible.
It is so amazing you are incapable of answering a proper post, except by jumping to something completely off topic, just to dodge the possibility of being found totally incompetent.
Originally posted by Devil King
Saying I've spent years reading books and watching documentaries and reading periodicals on the subject are NOT great claims. But, then again, I can't post a link or a picture that substantiates it. Asking you what you want to discuss on the subject is the only way I can prove I'm not talking out of my ass.However, it would be no great feat to post a link to the very real evidence that I'm sure exists to back up your claims.
They are great claims. If you claim to have studied the matter for seven years (without saying how or what), you are basically claiming to be an expert. Now you say you study tv programmes and maybe some populistic magazines, it kinda degrades you position as all knowing uber-being.
Originally posted by queeq
Hehehe, interesting this:And then:
It is so amazing you are incapable of answering a proper post, excpet by jumping to something completely off topic, just to dodge the possibility of being found totally incompetent.
there was no question asked in that post. It was a statement.
Originally posted by queeq
They are great claims. If you claim to have studied the matter for seven years (without saying how or what), you are basically claiming to be an expert. Now you say you study tv programmes and maybe some populistic magazines, it kinda degrades you position as all knowing uber-being.
yeah, books are populist...you're so elite.
Originally posted by queeq
Here he goes again, calling names to talk his way out of it.If I were to say I knew everything about quantum physics becasue I studied it all... and then say I got it all from Wikipedia, would you consider me a credible source?
Yeah, books are so populist.
and if watching documentaries are an example of populist mediocre crap, why would you claim to have made some?
Originally posted by Devil King
What do you call defending the bible as a valid record of history?
Depends on how it's done. But defending the possibility of the Bible as a hsitorical record is not a strange thing. It's belongs to the interest of historians/ Many scholars accept it as a potential source on the ancient near east. It's just from Solomon back into time that it gets unreliable, but only for one reason: lack of back up from the archaeological record.
Originally posted by Devil King
and if watching documentaries are an example of populist mediocre
crap, why would you claim to have made some?
According to you I never made any. Your word is considered truthful, mine is not.
And I never said they were mediocre crap, again, you put words in my mouth. Very mature.
Originally posted by queeq
Depends on how it's done. But defending the possibility of the Bible as a hsitorical record is not a strange thing. It's belongs to the interest of historians/ Many scholars accept it as a potential source on the ancient near east. It's just from Solomon back into time that it gets unreliable, but only for one reason: lack of back up from the archaeological record.
Well, you're defending it in a thread that is about proving the existence of god by using archaeology.
I have never said that it wasn't a "source" for referencing historical figures, I have said the stories in it are man made propoganda used to subjugate people, just like the other religion of the ancient world.